Avoiding Malicious Byzantine Faults by a New Signature Generation Technique

  • Klaus Echtle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1667)


Agreement problems like interactive consistency, reliable broadcast, group membership, etc. require a high protocol overhead when they must be solved under general (and thus hard) fault assumptions. Known signature methods contribute to more efficient solutions by protecting forwarded information from being altered undetectably. This paper presents a new signature generation technique, which prevents the occurrence of malicious Byzantine faults in the sender with very high probability. Hence, it is not necessary to exchange multicast messages among the receivers for an equality check. This advantage opens an extended design space of agreement protocols with fewer messages, fewer timeouts and thus lower execution times. The new unique signature generation algorithm (called UniSig) is based on alternately stepwise generation of coded sequence numbers and digital signatures. Different messages cannot obtain the same valid signature, because the steps to increment the coded sequence number are included in UniSig. Deviations from the program execution path are very likely to lead to detectably corrupted signatures. Hence, for each sequence number a valid signature can be generated only once.


Malicious Byzantine Faults Agreement Protocols Digital Signatures for Fault Tolerance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ö. Babaoglu, R. Drummond: Streets of Byzantium: network architectures for fast reliable broadcast; IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., vol. SE-11, no. 6, 1985, pp. 546–554.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Chen, W. Bücken, K. Echtle: Efficient algorithms for system diagnosis with both processor and comparator faults; IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 4, no. 4, 1993, pp. 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Chen, K. Echtle: Evaluation of deterministic fault injection for fault-tolerant protocol testing; FTCS-21, Digest of Papers, IEEE Press, 1991, pp. 418–425.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Cristian: Synchronous atomic broadcast for redundant broadcast channels; The Journal of Real-Time Systems, vol. 2, 1990, pp. 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Cristian: Reaching agreement on processor-group membership in synchronous distributed systems; Distributed Computing, vol. 4, Springer, 1991, pp. 175–187.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Dal Cin: On distributed system-level self-diagnosis; 4th Int. Conf. on Fault-Tolerant Computing, Informatik-Fachberichte 214, Springer, 1989, pp. 186–196.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Dolev, N. Lynch, S. Pinter, E. Stark, W. Weihl: Reaching approximate agreement in the presence of faults; 3rd Symp. on Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, Conf. Proc., IEEE Press, 1983, pp. 145–154.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Echtle: Fault masking and sequence agreement by a voting protocol with low message number; 6th Symp. Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, Conf. Proc., IEEE Press, 1987, pp. 149–160.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Echtle: Distance agreement protocols; FTCS-19, Digest of Papers, IEEE Press, 1989, pp. 191–198.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Echtle, M. Leu: The EFA fault injector for fault-tolerant distributed system testing; Fault-Tolerant Parallel and Distributed Syst., Conf. Proc., IEEE Press, 1992, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Echtle, M. Leu: Fault-detecting network membership protocols for unknown topologies; 4th Int. Working Conf. on Dependable Computing for Critical Applications DCCA-4, Conf. Proc., Springer, 1994, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Echtle, M. Leu: Test of fault-tolerant distributed systems by fault injection; Fault-Tolerant Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Press, 1995, pp. 244–251.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Echtle, A. Masum: A multiple bus broadcast protocol resilient to non-cooperative Byzantine faults; FTCS-26, Digest of Papers, IEEE Press, 1996, pp. 158–167.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Ezhilchelvan: Early stopping algorithms for distributed agreement under fail-stop, omission, and timing fault types; 6th symp. Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, Conf. Proc., IEEE Press, 1987, pp. 201–212.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Fischer, N. Lynch, M. Paterson: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process; Journal of the ACM, vol. 32, no. 2, 1985, pp. 374–382.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. DiGiandomenica, M. L. Guidotti, F. Grandoni, L. Simoncini: A gracefully degradable algorithm for byzantine agreement; 6th Symp. Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, Conf. Proc., IEEE Press, 1987, pp. 188–200.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Jenn, J. Arlat, M. Rimén, J. Ohlsson, J. Karlsson: Fault injection into VHDL models: the MEFISTO tool; FTCS-24, Digest of Papers, 1994, pp. 66–75.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Kopetz, G. Grünsteidl, J. Reisinger: Fault-tolerant membership service in a synchronous distributed real-time system; Dependable Computing for Critical Applications, Dependable Comp. and Fault-Tolerant Systems, vol. 4, Springer, 1991, pp. 411–429.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Leu: Relative signatures for fault tolerance and their implementation; 1st European Dependable Computing Conf. EDCC-1, LNCS 852, Springer, 1994, pp. 563–580.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Lovric: Processor fault simulation with ProFI; European Simulation Symposium ESS 95, Conf. Proc., 1995, pp. 353–357.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Powell: Failure mode assumptions and assumption coverage; FTCS-22, Digest of Papers, 1992, pp. 386–395.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Pease, R. Shostak, L. Lamport: Reaching agreement in the presence of faults; Journal of the ACM, vol. 27, no. 2, 1980, pp. 228–234.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Rufino, P. Verissimo, G. Arroz, C. Almeida, L. Rodrigues: Fault-tolerant broadcasts in CAN; FTCS-28, Digest of Papers, 1998, pp. 150–159.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. R. Strong, D. Dolev: Byzantine agreement; Compcon 83, Conf. Proc., IEEE Press, 1983, pp. 77–81.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Temple: Avoiding the babbling-idiot failure in a time-triggered communication system; FTCS-28, Digest of Papers, 1998, pp. 218–227.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Turek, D. Shasha: The many faces of consensus in distributed systems; Computer, IEEE Press, June 1992, pp. 8–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Echtle
    • 1
  1. 1.University of EssenEssen

Personalised recommendations